This is currently provided by cpu-defs and is a target specific
definition. However, to prepare for multi-arch only the bare minimum
content from cpu-defs.h should be exported to core code. And this is
all we need. So split it to a new header that the target_multi cpu.h
can include to save on havin
On 05/30/2015 11:11 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> This is currently provided by cpu-defs and is a target specific
> definition. However, to prepare for multi-arch only the bare minimum
> content from cpu-defs.h should be exported to core code. And this is
> all we need. So split it to a new header
On 01/06/2015 21:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/30/2015 11:11 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> This is currently provided by cpu-defs and is a target specific
>> definition. However, to prepare for multi-arch only the bare minimum
>> content from cpu-defs.h should be exported to core code. A
On 1 June 2015 at 20:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> He later #defines target_{,u}long to e.g. arm_target_{,u}long.
Yikes.
-- PMM
- Original Message -
> From: "Peter Maydell"
> To: "Paolo Bonzini"
> Cc: "Richard Henderson" , "Peter Crosthwaite"
> , "QEMU Developers"
> , "Edgar E. Iglesias" ,
> "Peter Crosthwaite"
> , "Andreas Färber"
> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 10:25:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 10/34] include
On 06/01/2015 12:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/06/2015 21:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/30/2015 11:11 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
This is currently provided by cpu-defs and is a target specific
definition. However, to prepare for multi-arch only the bare minimum
content from cpu-def
> > He later #defines target_{,u}long to e.g. arm_target_{,u}long.
>
> Ok, here's where I'm not liking things. It shouldn't be a typedef in some
> places and a define others. From this description, it sounds like it ought
> to always be a define.
target_long expands to arm_target_long, which i
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 12:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/06/2015 21:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2015 11:11 PM, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
This is currently provided by cpu-defs and is a target specific
On 02/06/2015 12:14, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> The #define-always change does make for a cleaner end result but I
> stayed away from it purely because I was thinking typedefs are better
> for type-definitions. But if we are open to the change of the #define
> based implementation I am all for it
